Atheists Lose 1, Deists Gain 1

[Broken]

To use a fun Star Trek quote, "Life as we know it, Jim."

Don't let thermodynamical-anthropomorphism shackle you. We are what we is cuz we growed where we grew.

-dale

I am not much of a fan of mental shackles. Too many of us stagger about under the weight of mental shackles that would put Marley (of Scrooge fame) to shame.

However, the laws of physics do seem fine-tuned to create complexity, and complexity would appear to be a necessary foundation for life, whether it is "life as we know it" or some other kind.

Let me ask you this. Do you believe the universe, or it's precursors, to have only come into existence 13.7 billion years ago? If so, how do you deal with the concept of an origin or beginning to time? If not, what leads you to believe that a being of "god-like" powers could not have arisen in a universe of infinte time duration?

[dalem]

I am not much of a fan of mental shackles. Too many of us stagger about under the weight of mental shackles that would put Marley (of Scrooge fame) to shame.

However, the laws of physics do seem fine-tuned to create complexity, and complexity would appear to be a necessary foundation for life, whether it is "life as we know it" or some other kind.

Let me ask you this. Do you believe the universe, or it's precursors, to have only come into existence 13.7 billion years ago? If so, how do you deal with the concept of an origin or beginning to time? If not, what leads you to believe that a being of "god-like" powers could not have arisen in a universe of infinte time duration?

First of all, I don't think it's valid to interpret the laws of physics with respect to "complexity" from the inside, so to speak. They are what they are. You're using a version the same circular argument that some folks use to claim proof of a god: "because our eyes are miraculously tuned to observe just those wavelengths of light that penetrate our atmosphere. And that can;t be a coincidence."

It's bunk.

To answer your questions:

1) I certainly believe that, according to our current understanding of natural law, the universe appears to be about 14 billion years old. When I was getting my bachelor's in Astronomy in the late 80s, the best anyone could do was "between 10 and 20 BY old". In 20 more years the number may change again, up or down, as our knowledge increases.

2) As far as the concept of a beginning of time, I don't deal with it much. I don't think we know enough about Cosmology to really even ask the right questions. Mr. A Square of Flatland has a long way to go before he can start asking the right questions to model something he can't perceive or conceive of in the 3-D world.

3) As far as deities go, ask a person of faith about a deity and they will tell you that a deity is infinite. Simply falling back to a comfortable "okay, the oldest thinking being in all of creation has lived long enough to develop god powers and make universes" won't cut it. The Judeo-Christian God, for instance, has always existed in God-form, always and forever, Amen. It is a concept, not a being.

-dale

[Bill]

"Antimatter and matter do not "destroy" each other - they simply convert each other completely into energy.

Nothing is gained, nothing is lost, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is appeased"

Unless i am WOEFULLY mistaken, the term used by scientists is 'anhillate'.

Anhillate is a synonym for destroy, is it not?

[Bill]

"Nope. Most of the energy is released in the form of photons (light). Photons have no mass. Good try though."

I'll let another egghead answer your remark, as it's done far better than i ever could:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive...estroyed?.html

"Originally posted by physicsnewbie
Sorry, I'm just a physics newbie.
The anwswer to this question depends on what you mean by "mass." There are two senses in which the term "mass" is used in physics. One is what some people call "relativistic mass" and the other ios what some people call "rest mass." And then it will depend on what you mean by the mass of a system of particles since this is often the case people speak of when they speak of the mass of a system.

In the following I'm assuming that energy is conserved which is almost always the case.


If you mean "relativistic mass" then the answer is that mass is always conserved - i.e. it's a constant. No matter how you count it the mass is conserved.

If you mean "rest mass" and then that too is conserved - *if* you defined the mass of a system of particles as the energy in the rest frame divided by c^2. If you simply add rest masses then no - mass is not conserved. Same with "invariant mass" since they're the same thing. But the system mass will depend on how you define it. Some people call the mass of a system the sum of the rest masses and some do it the other way

With regards to the mass = rest mass definition = Taylor and Wheeler explain all this in their text "Spacetime Physics - 2nd Ed" - the relavent part is online in my web site

See
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/stp/stp.htm

I have permission to post that from the author.

jeff said that mass means invariant mass and if one defines invariant mass as the magnitude of the total 4-momentum then what jeff claims is not true. And mass is not always defined to mean invariant mass (counter examples from relativity texts are Rindler (2002), Mould (1994), D'Inverno(1992), French (1968), etc). Not even for a large majority of the time. And jeff also implied that invariant mass is not conserved and that's not true either. Since invariant mass is defined as the mass in the rest frame and then in the rest frame its defined as "energy in rest frame"/c^2 so since energy is conserved then so too is mass.

For a worked out example of mass to energy conversion (mass changes form but not value) see

http://www.geocities.com/physics_wor...ear_energy.htm

For an explantion of what invariant mass is and why it's conserved see

http://www.geocities.com/physics_wor...riant_mass.htm

In the case jeff gave its rather easy to see why invariant mass "of the system" is conserved"

[Bill]

"As I said before, the predictions of quantum theory have been verified countless times. It has been found to match the empirical data extremely well. The fact that your computer works is empirical proof, since the solid-state physics that went into the chip design is all based on quantum mechanics."

There can be no empirical observation because of Heisenbergs principle of uncertainty.

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...ge_begins.html

Heisenberg wrote his first paper on quantum mechanics in 1925 and 2 years later stated his uncertainty principle. It states that the process of measuring the position x of a particle disturbs the particle's momentum p, so that

Dx Dp gte planck = h/2p

where Dx is the uncertainty of the position and Dp is the uncertainty of the momentum. Here h is Planck's constant and planck is usually called the 'reduced Planck's constant'. Heisenberg states that "the nonvalidity of rigorous causality is necessary and not just consistently possible."

So are you stating that Heisenberg was wrong?

[Bill]

And as far as photons having no mass:

"The uncertainty principle was not accepted by everyone. Its most outspoken opponent was Einstein. He devised a challenge to Niels Bohr which he made at a conference which they both attended in 1930. Einstein suggested a box filled with radiation with a clock fitted in one side. The clock is designed to open a shutter and allow one photon to escape. Weigh the box again some time later and the photon energy and its time of escape can both be measured with arbitrary accuracy. Of course this is not meant to be an actual experiment, only a 'thought experiment'.

Niels Bohr is reported to have spent an unhappy evening, and Einstein a happy one, after this challenge by Einstein to the uncertainty principle. However Niels Bohr had the final triumph, for the next day he had the solution. The mass is measured by hanging a compensation weight under the box. This is turn imparts a momentum to the box and there is an error in measuring the position. Time, according to relativity, is not absolute and the error in the position of the box translates into an error in measuring the time.

Although Einstein was never happy with the uncertainty principle, he was forced, rather grudgingly, to accept it after Bohr's explanation. "

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...ge_begins.html

Obviously Einstein and Bohr disagree with your assertion.

[Bill]

"Our understanding of the beginning of the universe is rather "nebulus", pardon the pun."

Instead of digging into your full text with my own conjecture, i will instead respond with, It certainly is. :)

[dalem]

"Antimatter and matter do not "destroy" each other - they simply convert each other completely into energy.

Nothing is gained, nothing is lost, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is appeased"

Unless i am WOEFULLY mistaken, the term used by scientists is 'anhillate'.

Anhillate is a synonym for destroy, is it not?

Their material form is completely erased and replaced with a 100% (200%, actually, if you count them both) E=MC^2 conversion-equivalent of Energy.

-dale

[Bill]

but the conserved mass remains the same, does it not?

This seems to suggest it does(from my post above):

"Since invariant mass is defined as the mass in the rest frame and then in the rest frame its defined as "energy in rest frame"/c^2 so since energy is conserved then so too is mass.

For a worked out example of mass to energy conversion (mass changes form but not value) see

http://www.geocities.com/physics_wo...lear_energy.htm"

[Parihaka]

. As one physicist put it: ‘To get a Universe that has expanded as long as ours has without either collapsing or having its matter coast away would have required extraordinary fine-tuning.’ 1 This same scientist calculated that the odds of achieving that kind of precise expansion would be the same as throwing a microscopic dart across the Universe and hitting a bull’s-eye one millimetre in diameter.

when you start examining the probability of ANY event within the context of the universe as a whole, the numbers become absurd. Whether it's the odds on the expansion of the universe or the probability all of the atoms being in the same place and time in the bogey that I pick out of my nose, 'what are the chances of that' become meaningless.
It's easy to ascribe things we don't understand to being the direct hand of God, when we do understand them, we tend to dismiss it as not being Gods work. Thats why I beleive that God isn't an outside agency acting on the universe (or universes) but is simply the totality of the universe(s). nothing more: nothing less.

[Broken]

As you stated, matter and energy are the same things, just different forms.

Not quite. Matter is a form of energy, but energy is not a form of matter. Matter always has a rest mass, whereas energy often does not (light). Energy is conserved, mass is not.

[Bill]

"Energy is conserved, mass is not."

How convenient of you to ignore my above posts.

Relativistic mass is always conserved, it's a constant.

[Broken]

"Nope. Most of the energy is released in the form of photons (light). Photons have no mass. Good try though."

I'll let another egghead answer your remark, as it's done far better than i ever could:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive...estroyed?.html

"Originally posted by physicsnewbie
Sorry, I'm just a physics newbie.
The anwswer to this question depends on what you mean by "mass." There are two senses in which the term "mass" is used in physics. One is what some people call "relativistic mass" and the other ios what some people call "rest mass." And then it will depend on what you mean by the mass of a system of particles since this is often the case people speak of when they speak of the mass of a system.

In the following I'm assuming that energy is conserved which is almost always the case.


If you mean "relativistic mass" then the answer is that mass is always conserved - i.e. it's a constant. No matter how you count it the mass is conserved.

If you mean "rest mass" and then that too is conserved - *if* you defined the mass of a system of particles as the energy in the rest frame divided by c^2. If you simply add rest masses then no - mass is not conserved. Same with "invariant mass" since they're the same thing. But the system mass will depend on how you define it. Some people call the mass of a system the sum of the rest masses and some do it the other way

With regards to the mass = rest mass definition = Taylor and Wheeler explain all this in their text "Spacetime Physics - 2nd Ed" - the relavent part is online in my web site

See
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/stp/stp.htm

I have permission to post that from the author.

jeff said that mass means invariant mass and if one defines invariant mass as the magnitude of the total 4-momentum then what jeff claims is not true. And mass is not always defined to mean invariant mass (counter examples from relativity texts are Rindler (2002), Mould (1994), D'Inverno(1992), French (1968), etc). Not even for a large majority of the time. And jeff also implied that invariant mass is not conserved and that's not true either. Since invariant mass is defined as the mass in the rest frame and then in the rest frame its defined as "energy in rest frame"/c^2 so since energy is conserved then so too is mass.

For a worked out example of mass to energy conversion (mass changes form but not value) see

http://www.geocities.com/physics_wor...ear_energy.htm

For an explantion of what invariant mass is and why it's conserved see

http://www.geocities.com/physics_wor...riant_mass.htm

In the case jeff gave its rather easy to see why invariant mass "of the system" is conserved"

You are confusing relativistic invarients, such as proper mass, magnitude of the four momentum, etc with mass conservation. Basically, the above discussion is about what is and isn't conserved in a relativistic coordinate transform (called a Lorentz transform). The whole discussion is assuming the masses in question are not reactive to keep things simple. Particle physics is not even discussed.

Now, relativity is important in particle physics. For example, the rest mass of an electron or positron is about 0.5 Mev (Million electron-volts). Say you want to create a "Zeta particle" of 90 MeV rest mass from an electron-positron collision. Obviously, the energies of two particles you start with aren't enough. So you put them in your particle accelerator and crank their speed up to where their energies are 45 MeV each. When the two particles smash together, they have enough energy (45 + 45 = 90) to create the Zeta particle. So, two highspeed lightweight particles have been used to create a particle 90 times more massive. Rest mass has not been conserved.

Now, the Zeta particle isn't very stable. A short time later it will decay, say into an electron and a positron again. So we have a massive stationary 90 MeV particle decaying into two highspeed particles of 0.5 MeV mass and 45 MeV total energy. Again, mass is not conserved.

Got that? By the way the Rindler book mentioned in the above "physics forums" is quite good, as is the book by Wheeler.

[Bill]

"Relativistic mass is always conserved, it's a constant."

So you are saying the above statement is incorrect then?

[Broken]

"As I said before, the predictions of quantum theory have been verified countless times. It has been found to match the empirical data extremely well. The fact that your computer works is empirical proof, since the solid-state physics that went into the chip design is all based on quantum mechanics."

There can be no empirical observation because of Heisenbergs principle of uncertainty.

No, the uncertainty principle predicts what will be empirically observed. Quantum Mechanics says that if you conduct certain measurements a single time, there is uncertainty in the outcome. However, if you make that measurement a million times, the observed results will fit a very predictable probability distribution. Quantum Mechanics predicts the probabilities of empirical outcomes. And it predicts those outcomes extremely well. The uncertainty principle means that predicting probabilities is the best you can do.

Here's an example. If you flip a coin once, there is uncertainty in whether you will get heads or tails. If you flip that coin a billion times, almost exactly 50% will be heads and 50% tails. That is the "uncertainty principle" for flipping coins.

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...ge_begins.html

Heisenberg wrote his first paper on quantum mechanics in 1925 and 2 years later stated his uncertainty principle. It states that the process of measuring the position x of a particle disturbs the particle's momentum p, so that

Dx Dp gte planck = h/2p

where Dx is the uncertainty of the position and Dp is the uncertainty of the momentum. Here h is Planck's constant and planck is usually called the 'reduced Planck's constant'. Heisenberg states that "the nonvalidity of rigorous causality is necessary and not just consistently possible."

So are you stating that Heisenberg was wrong?

No, I am saying you are confused about what the uncertainty principle means. Read what I wrote above.